Debate help...why is homosexuality wrong?

[Proselyte]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[DeepThinker]

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

The Bible is pretty clear on the matter. There are other quotes, but this one says it all.
If I don't listen to what the Bible says about this, why should I listen about adultery, theft etc?
I don't want to start picking and choosing what I agree with in the Bible to fit my comfortable world view...

Do you wear man made fibres?? the Bible says we should not, this is my personal veiw, I belive that the Bible is a guide to help us do the right thing it is true, but we must interpret why it is saying what it is saying, you cannot blindly follow it, by all means have blind faith in the word of God but the Bible is written by man not God so we have to try and see what the message in the words is and not always take the scriptures for granted.

 

[Proselyte]

I do believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God through man. There are many things we don't understand in the Bible, but that doesn't mean there isn't a purpose at the time for them. Who knows why God instructed us about the fibres situation, but I'm not throwing out my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible over that.
I understand where you are coming from, because I thought the same way. Once I accepted that I won't understand the reasons for everything God intends, things got a lot better. He's God, I am not. I will never understand everything and that's ok.
The Bible is very clear about being against the sin of homosexuality.

 

[DeepThinker]

I do believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God through man. There are many things we don't understand in the Bible, but that doesn't mean there isn't a purpose at the time for them.

Well we all have our own belifes please dont think that I want to obstruct yours in any way. I cant help but try to understand God I know I never will but im just the sort of person who needs to ask questions even if there is no answer available.

Its my view on the Bible that alot of it could have been added or excluded by governments for the good of society, this is entirly possible. For this reason I cant just belive every word without questioning the motives behind it, thats just me.

 

[Proselyte]

It's good to question things. I appreciate your right to believe as you like. I also appreciate your honesty and good natured debate.
Thanks.

 

[he4rty]

I don't think it is wrong.. if you actually knew anyone personally who is a homosexual you would know that it's not something they choose but it is something they are born with.

slightly off the beaten track but just a lot lately we keep hearing this arguement for lots of different things (addiction,anger,sexuality) its not my fault its the genes i`ve got. the devil removing our responsibility of our behaviour?

shall we start a thread on this topic if so where do we post it.

 

[No Swansong]

Just to confuse you even more, there is no consensus of opinion amongst all Christians that the Bible is against a loving, stable, homosexual relationship.

If your friends do not believe there is a God, and many Christians do not believe that god is against stable, loving relationships between two people of the same sex, then you are going to have a hard job convincing them that homosexuality is wrong!

Maybe it isn't wrong! Have you listened to their arguments for homosexuality not being sinful? Try it, you might learn something!

However it has been shown many times over that the vast majority of Christians would agree that Scripture is against any sexual relationship outside of marriage and that Scripture only approves of marriage between one man and one woman.

 

[No Swansong]

I don't think it is wrong.. if you actually knew anyone personally who is a homosexual you would know that it's not something they choose but it is something they are born with.

Most evidence tends to point to it as being nurture not nature. But that still doesn't make it a choice.

 

[HunterRose]

Most evidence tends to point to it as being nurture not nature. But that still doesn't make it a choice.

Nurture? I’ve only seen evidence that homosexuality, indeed all sexual orientation is an inborn trait (nature). Can you reference some the evidence your referring to?

 

[JonF]

Nurture? I’ve only seen evidence that homosexuality, indeed all sexual orientation is an inborn trait (nature). Can you reference some the evidence your referring to?

If it was vastly nature, then can we suppose it is genetic? How can such a genetic trait exist if it is so extremely detrimental to reproduction?

If homosexuality was genetic to the point of where you didn’t have a choice about it, homosexuality couldn’t exist.

 

[DeepThinker]

If it was vastly nature, then can we suppose it is genetic? How can such a genetic trait exist if it is so extremely detrimental to reproduction?

If homosexuality was genetic to the point of where you didn’t have a choice about it, homosexuality couldn’t exist.

Well thats confused me or at least the second point has.
To answer the first point genetic traits exist that are detramental to reproduction quite often, its the reason for many species dying out. evolution does not always choose a path that helps a species. The difference with humans is that we no longer have survival of the fittest with society as it is now, but is that a bad thing. Cirtainly not morally at least.

 

[JonF]

You’re right, evolution doesn’t always yield beneficial results immediately. But anything that is as detrimental to reproduction such as homosexuality doesn’t make it very many generations. Since genetic drift is a necessary component of any trait to be introduced to a population. Limiting reproduction limits genetic drift.

Clarification: I’m not denying that there may be genetic factors in homosexuality. What I am denying is that these genetic factors are so extreme that you have no choice but to be homosexual if they are present.

Let us suppose they are. Then anyone with said genetic factors is homosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t reproduce. If they don’t reproduce they don’t spread the homosexual gene.

Simply put: gene flow is a governing mechanic of evolution. no gene flow, no trait.

 

[DeepThinker]

You’re right, evolution doesn’t always yield beneficial results immediately. But anything that is as detrimental to reproduction such as homosexuality doesn’t make it very many generations. Since genetic drift is a necessary component of any trait to be introduced to a population. Limiting reproduction limits genetic drift.

Clarification: I’m not denying that there may be genetic factors in homosexuality. What I am denying is that these genetic factors are so extreme that you have no choice but to be homosexual if they are present.

Let us suppose they are. Then anyone with said genetic factors is homosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals don’t reproduce. If they don’t reproduce they don’t spread the homosexual gene.

Simply put: gene flow is a governing mechanic of evolution. no gene flow, no trait.

kk get you now.
I admit it makes sense, however I am still sceptical. what happens if we reverse the argument? Would you say that as heterosexuals we too then have to choice of being gay?

I know I will never find a man attaractive in such a way. So could it not be the same for them?

 

[HunterRose]

If it was vastly nature, then can we suppose it is genetic? How can such a genetic trait exist if it is so extremely detrimental to reproduction?

If homosexuality was genetic to the point of where you didn’t have a choice about it, homosexuality couldn’t exist.

You seem to have made a few false assumptions about genetics.

First is we associate what you are saying with evolution and genetics you have mistaken survival of the species with passing on one’s specific genes. Not all members of a species reproduce. Bees, termites, gorillas, elephants, wolves, and many other species have a limited number of reproducing members. If memory serves only 5% of elephant and Gorilla males ever have the opportunity to pass on their genes.

Second you have ignored the concept of recessive traits. These are genetic traits that are not directly passes on to offspring. The genetics that provide for resistance/immunity to malaria are for example recessive.

Third there are many genetic traits that are detrimental to reproduction. Hemophilia, type I diabetes are two immediate examples. Until very recently (in the last 60-70 years individuals with these genetic conditions almost universally died in childhood. Yet if what you suggest were true, we would have no type I diabetes and no hemophiliacs

And finally there is the fact that there is a significant amount of evidence that sexual orientation is an inborn trait.

 

[Proselyte]

You seem to have made a few false assumptions about genetics.

First is we associate what you are saying with evolution and genetics you have mistaken survival of the species with passing on one’s specific genes. Not all members of a species reproduce. Bees, termites, gorillas, elephants, wolves, and many other species have a limited number of reproducing members. If memory serves only 5% of elephant and Gorilla males ever have the opportunity to pass on their genes.

Second you have ignored the concept of recessive traits. These are genetic traits that are not directly passes on to offspring. The genetics that provide for resistance/immunity to malaria are for example recessive.

Third there are many genetic traits that are detrimental to reproduction. Hemophilia, type I diabetes are two immediate examples. Until very recently (in the last 60-70 years individuals with these genetic conditions almost universally died in childhood. Yet if what you suggest were true, we would have no type I diabetes and no hemophiliacs

And finally there is the fact that there is a significant amount of evidence that sexual orientation is an inborn trait.

Let's assume you are correct with homosexuality being genetic, what is your view as to whether or not it is a sin in God's eyes?

 

[JonF]

First is we associate what you are saying with evolution and genetics you have mistaken survival of the species with passing on one’s specific genes. Not all members of a species reproduce. Bees, termites, gorillas, elephants, wolves, and many other species have a limited number of reproducing members. If memory serves only 5% of elephant and Gorilla males ever have the opportunity to pass on their genes.

This doesn’t relate to my post, since my post was about the relationship between members of a population passing on genes and reproducing.

Second you have ignored the concept of recessive traits. These are genetic traits that are not directly passes on to offspring. The genetics that provide for resistance/immunity to malaria are for example recessive.

I did, for simplicity sake but I will now address it. If homosexuality is genetic and recessive we still run into problems. Most traits that have detrimental affect on reproduction that are recessive are recessive to a large degree, keeping a very small portion of the population showing phenotypes for said trait. Thus the trait is allowed to commit gene flow. A significant portion of our population shows physical characteristics of homosexuality, so if homosexuality was recessive, it wouldn’t be recessive to the degree required to allow sufficient genetic drift.

Third there are many genetic traits that are detrimental to reproduction. Hemophilia, type I diabetes are two immediate examples. Until very recently (in the last 60-70 years individuals with these genetic conditions almost universally died in childhood. Yet if what you suggest were true, we would have no type I diabetes and no hemophiliacs

The roll of genetics in type 1 diabetes is still highly debatable. Many with type 1 diabetes still reach maturity and reproduce, this makes a dramatic distinction between the case of homosexuality and type 1 diabetes. My claim was about genetics playing a role in homosexuality to the degree of where homosexuals have no choice but to be homosexual. A quote from wikipedia:
“Type 1 diabetes appears to be triggered by some infection types, stress, or environmental factors (e.g., exposure to certain chemicals). There is a genetic element in individual susceptibility to some of these triggers which has been traced to particular HLA genotypes (i.e., genetic "self" identifiers used by the immune system). However, even in those who have inherited the susceptibility, type 1 diabetes mellitus seems to require an environmental trigger”

Hemophilia is highly recessive, to the point of nearly 1/3 of all cases of hemophilia being spontaneous. Both parents must carry hemophilia in order to produce a child who shows any physical signs of being a hemophiliac. This is why no significant portion of our population shows phenotypes for hemophilia. Unlike homosexuality. Homosexuality can’t be recessive to the degree of hemophilia because such a significant portion of our population is homosexual.

 

[JonF]

Let's assume you are correct with homosexuality being genetic, what is your view as to whether or not it is a sin in God's eyes?

The point is if it is entirely genetic, you don’t have a choice about being homosexual. How could God condemn something that you don’t have any choice in doing?

 

[MapleLeaf]

However it has been shown many times over that the vast majority of Christians would agree that Scripture is against any sexual relationship outside of marriage and that Scripture only approves of marriage between one man and one woman.

Okay 2 points here.

1) If scripture says that marriage is between a man and a woman, are you in support of civil marriages between same-sex couples? The United States, nor Canada is a theocracy so should not be ruled by any particular religion.

2) If scripture is the rule of law, what about all the overweight people in North American society? Last time I read the Bible it also mentioned gluttony as a sin. Can we stop overweight people from eating? Deny them the opportunity to be with someone they love? After all, they can control that as well and "choose" not to.

 

[JonF]

Okay 2 points here.

1) If scripture says that marriage is between a man and a woman, are you in support of civil marriages between same-sex couples? The United States, nor Canada is a theocracy so should not be ruled by any particular religion.

2) If scripture is the rule of law, what about all the overweight people in North American society? Last time I read the Bible it also mentioned gluttony as a sin. Can we stop overweight people from eating? Deny them the opportunity to be with someone they love? After all, they can control that as well and "choose" not to.

i don't think he made a claim about what should be legal, only about what is a sin.

 

[he4rty]

Hemophilia is highly recessive, to the point of nearly 1/3 of all cases of hemophilia being spontaneous. Both parents must carry hemophilia in order to produce a child who shows any physical signs of being a hemophiliac. This is why no significant portion of our population shows phenotypes for hemophilia. Unlike homosexuality. Homosexuality can’t be recessive to the degree of hemophilia because such a significant portion of our population is homosexual.

As i have a brother who is a Hemophilliac i must point out that it is only the X chromo that is affected so women only carry the illness as their other x chromo helps balance things out. but men have the illness if they father children boys should be ok girls become carriers.